This is not the first instance when the mainstream media has
shamelessly indulged in twisting facts and selective reporting to
pursue an agenda. On this front, the #paidmedia, as it is now
popularly called, is no less than religious propagandists like
Zakir Naik who quote scriptures selectively and
infer grossly wrong meaning from them. Similar is the case with
India's mainstream media, especially when it comes to Narendra
Modi. The latest instance of this, we saw with this amicus curiae
report, which can be downloaded from below.

In the first part of the report, it mentions how in his report
dated 20th January 2011, the amicus curiae had recommended that
Modi be probed in connection with the allegations made by Sanjeev
Bhatt an regarding the Narodra Patia and Gulberg society case. The
report recollects how the Supreme Court ordered the SIT to pursue
this investigation and submit its report. The SIT recorded the
statements of 48 witnesses and submitted the report. The court
decided that the amicus curiae will independently assess the
recorded statements of witnesses and examine the SIT report. The
report further recollects how the SIT reported that while the
meeting about which Sanjeev Bhatt has made the allegations against
Modi, was indeed held but no such instructions "to let Hindus vent
their anger" were given by Modi. Amicus curiae goes on to mention
that SIT reported that the two ministers posted at the State Police
Control Room did not influence the police in anyway. Next, the
report elaborates about amicus curiae's interaction with the people
concerned like Sanjeev Bhatt, PC Pandey and several others whose
names are mentioned in this report including Teesta Setalwad.

The amicus curiae quotes the findings of the SIT
with regard to Sanjeev Bhatt's allegations and why SIT believes
he's lying, before contesting the same.
"The SIT also discredits Shri Bhatt by pointing out that his
version about a subsequent meeting at the Chief Minister’s
residence on 28.02.2002 at about 10:30 hours cannot be believed
because his mobile phone records show that he was at Ahmedabad at
10:57 A.M., and therefore could not have reached Gandhinagar before
11:30 A.M." The amicus curiae report goes on to say, "I am left
with no doubt that he (Sanjeev Bhatt) is actively 'strategizing',
and is in touch with those who would benefit or gain mileage from
his testimony. But these factors, in my view, cannot be grounds for
ignoring his statement at this stage."

However, the report proceeds to say that there is no documentary
evidence to disbelieve Sanjeev Bhatt's statements and it is his
words against his seniors words. It says, "I am of the view that
Shri Bhatt needs to be put through the test of cross-examination,
as do the others who deny his presence." and further, "... whether
Shri Modi had indeed made such a statement (as spoken to by Shri
Bhatt) can only be decided by a court of law."

The report briefly digresses to discuss the accusations against M K
Tandon, the then JCP, Ahmedabad, Sector-2 and P B Gondia, then then
DCP of Ahmedabad Zone-IV.

The report says that the Ministers were posted with Modi's consent
but there is no evidence to show that they interfered with Police
functioning. "There is an absence of material to indicate that the
statement of Shri Modi, allegedly made in the meeting on
27.02.2002, had been actively implemented by the Ministers or the 2
police officials who participated in the said meeting."

Thus, the amicus curiae report says that while Sanjeev Bhatt's
claim cannot be established to be false without being
cross-examined in court, even if the claim were true, there is
nothing to show that Modi's alleged 'instruction' of allowing the
Hindus to vent their anger was at all implemented at any level.

And now, the most important lines around which the mainstream media
created all their stories. "Hence, the question to be examined is
whether the making of the statement by the Chief Minister in the
meeting on 27.02.2002, by itself, is an offence under law. In my
opinion, the offences which can be made out against Shri Modi, at
this prima facie stage, are offences inter alia under Sections 153A
(1) (a) & (b), 153B (1) (c), 166 and 505 (2) of the IPC. ..
However, it would be for the Court of competent jurisdiction to
decide whether Shri Modi has to be summoned for any or all of these
offences, or for any other offence(s)."

Read the above lines. The amicus curiae has just opined that Modi
"can be" tried at the same time conceding that it is for the court
to decide if at all Modi should be summoned. Not only this, the
report further says, "I would respectfully submit that this Hon’ble
Court ought not to express any view on the merits. Any finding by
this Hon'ble Court in these proceedings, even prima facie, would be
detrimental to the accused or the Complainant, as the case may be.
This Hon'ble Court may leave the matter to be adjudicated by a
court of competent jurisdiction."

So, what the amicus curiae actually 'recommends' to the Supreme
Court that appointed him, is that Supreme Court should not pass any
comment and let the lower court take its course and decide if the
closure report is to be accepted or not. And, in the final section
of his report, Amicus curiae Raju Ramachandran mentions all the
points of the SIT report with which he agrees completely. Point no.
48 among these points accepts SITs observations about the steps
taken the Narendra Modi to CONTROL the riots.

"As far as the SIT’s conclusion with regard to the steps taken by
the Chief Minister Shri Modi to control the riots in Ahmedabad is
concerned, the same may be accepted, in the absence of any evidence
to the contrary."

Another point reads, "Similarly, as far as the observations of the
SIT with regard to the Chief Minister’s statement on television on
01.03.2002 are concerned, the same may be accepted."

It is a matter of shame how all this was selectively reported to
sound like a "set-back to Modi". How the media
created issues of the "topi" episode and recently
Nitish Kumar shaking hand with Modi was also for everyone to see.
While a massive crowd greeted Modi recently in the Biharis
gathering, the same was thinly reported, and that too with
headlines like "Modi tries to woo Bihari voters in election year".
Perhaps, our mainstream media forgets that Modi is already too
popular and doesn't need to "woo" Brahmins or Biharis as media
wants us to believe. This compartmentalization of people into
sectarian identities is what petty political leaders and parties
thrive upon, and so does the mainstream media, and Narendra Modi is
too big to stoop to such politics, contrary to what the mainstream
media projects.